PoliticalAgitator @ PoliticalAgitator @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

793

Joined

2 yr. ago

The mothers may not even have been alive and medical staff simply can't evacuate premature babies and all the ICU equipment needed to keep them alive.

This story is absolutely going to be used as "look how inhuman and barbarous these Palestinians are, good thing we're genociding them" and your comment is exactly what they're looking for.

But the reality is that if you shoot and bomb civilians, then threaten to bomb the hospital they're being treated at, this could happen anywhere in the world.

They weren't leaving babies to die and rot 6 months ago because they weren't being shelled and shot at and if they weren't being shelled and shot at now, they wouldn't have left those babies either.

Moving outside of guns specifically, that's happened with abortion rights; first it was just some abortions, then all of them (depending on the state), then the right to travel to another state, now they're working on banning birth control and overturning no-fault divorce.

Why didn't the pro-gun community stop it? Aren't you claiming right now that guns are required to stop rights being eroded?

Yes, people use the best tool that they have available. If that tool magically didn't exist--and there are more guns than people in the US--then people would switch to a different tool

Yes, I want people to have worse tools for killing innocent people. You're openly admitting it would would be an improvement.

and you'd be talking about how people used X because it's better than Y, and so we need to ban X.

Sure thing. I assume its also fine for me to extrapolate your views out forever and claim your goal is to legalise hand grenades, claymores and rocket launchers for all Americans, including felons, as the first step to eventually making WMDs cheap and freely available to everyone and the only way to prevent that is to immediately ban all private gun sales.

Of course, those might be your actual views since they're not uncommon in the pro-gun community, unlike the mythical gun control advocates who start with "lets not sell guns to people who have been making death threats" and don't stop until they've banned hammers.

People in other countries have these same debates, trying to create ever stricter security measures to prevent crimes, even though they have far, far lower rates or murder.

How dare people try and prevent preventable deaths. What scumbags.

I wonder why they have "far, far lower rates for murder" since obviously the only way to truly be safe is the cold embrace of an AR-15.

Much like your utopia where guns don't exist?

Did you forget the rest of the world exists and has gun control? They even change their gun laws over time in response to changing circumstances, rather than just ask slavers with wooden teeth their thoughts then vow to use that forever.

Why do you resist the social changes that would reduce violence across the board, and not just one specific subset using one tool?

Sure, you could have tried your luck with that when the pro-gun crowd was blaming dumb shit like video games, rock music and the number of doors a building had, but what are you suggesting I oppose now?

I support increased access to mental health services, universal healthcare and massively reducing wealth inequality. This has been my consistent opinion for over 25 years, before doing mass shootings with your legal guns became a fad among the far-right.

But I'm never going to support maximizing the damage that criminals, abusers, idiots and domestic terrorists can do just because there might be less of them in 50 years, especially in return for bullshit promises about rights, democracy and personal safety that are less true in America than in countries with gun control.

"I have the solution to fascism"

"So you've solved fascism then?"

"No"

I think the fantasy is probably "far-right extremist kills an expendable minority, granting me a free murder with my cool guns".

They're about as credible as people saying they're going to fix it with crystals and prayer.

How many have you killed so far then? Don't be coy.

Is the answer "zero" despite your "really good reason"?

Oh well, add me to the list of things you're going to fix with your super cool magic guns then.

You going to shoot the ballots too? All those guns and the best you can offer is pagentry.

You haven't stopped a fascist running. You haven't stopped the gerrymandering. You haven't stopped corporate lobbying. You haven't stopped far-right mass shootings.

But apparently we're supposed to line up to suck your dick because you're going to puff out your chest and also fail to prevent voter intimidation?

You're the same problem in a blue shirt.

Then they're fucking idiots too.

Why? What's the offensive part of that?

Is it how accessible it is? Because for millions of American households, needing to venture out into public is less accessible than the firearm of their nearest "responsible gun owner".

Is it that a company makes a small profit from each suicide? Because the guns used in all these suicides aren't given away for free.

Way back in 1999 when this episode first aired, the joke was that phone booths have been replaced by suicide booths, a joke written when the Nokia 5110 was a flagship phone.

But of course, 25ish years later, neither phone booths nor suicide booths are anywhere to be found because they simply can't match the convenience of the phone in your pocket or the gun in your drawer.

Who would use it when they have pro-gun assisted suicide?

For doctor-assisted suicide, you need to be over 18 anywhere it's available.

But for pro-gun suicide, children only need a "responsible gun owner" in the house with a poorly secured firearm, thanks to their staunch opposition of safe storage laws and need to be 3 second from a gun at all times.

For doctor-assisted suicide, you generally need to be terminally ill first and undergo a psychological evaluation to ensure you're mentally capable of making an informed decision.

But for pro-gun suicide, you can kill yourself without even the most token effort to cure your mental health problems, thanks to their staunch opposition to red flag laws. Their only requirement is "not a felon" and they even ensure you can get around it with a private sale loophole.

For doctor-assisted suicide, you usually need the approval of two doctors, both of which have years of medical school to pay off and neither of which your sleazy insurance company will want to pay for.

But for pro-gun suicide, a cheap handgun can be yours for under $200, because that's what someones life is worth to them.

For doctor-assisted suicide, you will usually have a minimum waiting period between your first and second requests, to ensure you're not making an impulsive decision.

But for pro-gun suicide, you can do it on a whim. Even if you haven't surrounded yourself with super cool guns already, the waiting period is typically only a few days and if you're lucky enough to live in a pro-gun state, there might be no minimum waiting period at all.

For doctor-assisted suicide, the medication is very deliberately dispensed to ensure there is no danger to anybody else.

But for pro-gun suicide, take all the people you want with you when you go. Family members, a room full of terrified children, a bunch of minorities some Discord channel insisted were the reason your life sucks -- the pro-gun community don't even pretend to care, let alone do something about it.

Ultimately, doctors just can't compete with the cheap, accessible, fast and poorly considered suicides offered by American gun laws. Why else do you think they've skyrocketed?

Because it's definitely not because terminally ill people are deciding to end their life without the dignity of keeping their brains inside their skull -- an idea that is so thoroughly stupid that I'm having a hard time believing your intention is anything more than simply making the statistics around firearms look better.

He also accidentally admitted that private gun ownership does nothing to prevent violent crime, given that "violent crime rates are comparable" between America and countries that don't let insane death cults write their laws.

He tried to walk it back saying "actually the other countries are worse" but a quick look at the figures show they're all within a few percent for things like rape and assault, until you get to America with its 400% higher homicide rate.

Some of that isn't even well hidden, with "robbery" being included in his list of violent crimes, despite the low number of people killed during property thefts in Australia and the U.K.

They never genuinely cared about the quality of their police, they just needed something to blame besides "a weapon manufacturer that targets teenagers with their marketing was allowed to legally sell two semi-automatic rifles to someone with a history of death threats and animal abuse, who immediately used them for the standard domestic homicide/mass execution of children".

Their crime was embarrassing gun owners, not failing to save children.

Police were on the scene within minutes of the first gunshot at Sandy Hook and they breached the room a few minutes after that.

27 people were already dead, because it turns out that AR-15s can easily supply violence far in excess of what anyone could ever need for sport or self defense.

But his mother was a "responsible gun owner", so he had free access to firearms and the moment he was armed, it was too late for someone.

Because the dirty secret is that even the "good guy with a gun" perfect case, when they're seconds away, armed, competent (despite competence being voluntary) and not just fleeing with everyone else, they can't intervene until shots have been fired.

People start stabbing each other

Even giving you a free pass on that actually being true, stabbings are both easier to flee and less lethal. It would be a genuine improvement

Then you have to start trying to take all the knives. Then the clubs. Then bottles, and bricks, and hammers, and screwdrivers.

Isn't it just fascinating that this slippery slope always starts at "guns"?

Somehow, it's impossible to stop at "lets not sell guns to idiots and psychopaths" like sane people. Once we start down that road, we have to just keep banning more and more things forever, despite the fact none of those things are covered by the second amendment and could be banned right now if we actually wanted to.

You may as well be claiming "Driving under the influence? What next? Driving sober? Bikes? Horses? Legs?".

You're never going to be able to take all of the tools that people use to commit murder, because "bare hands" account for something like 5% of all homicides in the US

Meanwhile, guns account for 81% of those homicides because they're more lethal, in less time, with less chance of escaping or being interrupted.

Most of the guns used in those homicides are legally purchased, but that's mostly academic given that 99% of guns used in crimes were originally legally purchased from dealers, pawnbrokers or manufacturers, clearly demonstrating that the background checks and storage laws are not even remotely adequate.

You keep accidentally admitting how much better things would be if Americas had gun laws in line with the rest of the world, instead of pretending every murder is inevitable like you wanted.

Fix the underlying problems, and most of that violence--the violence that turns into murder--ends up going away on it's own.

Sure. Let us know when you're done building that utopia so we can look at actual crime stats that actually exist, rather than fantasy statistics that the pro-gun community insists will come true eventually.

Until then, why do you staunchly oppose measures designed to reduce the number of murderers armed with the tools you openly admit are best-in-class for murder?

You're already projecting compassion he doesn't have by assuming he'd wait for them to turn 18. If he thought it would work, he'd march 5 year olds in bomb vests over the border then have Elon announce that Ukraine kills children.

If it means race traitor it must have to do with the fact that the Bull is typically a large black man in the porn.

That is exactly the reason.

And it doesn't

And to be logically consistent, do you also shame people for trying to remove things like child pornography, pornographic photos posted without consent or leaked personal details from the internet?